spool_update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it omits key traits: whether this is a partial update (unspecified fields preserved) or a replace, whether archived can be un-set, and what permissions or side effects apply. Only the archive-implies-empty hint gives any behavioral signal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with three parallel clauses and no filler. Compact and readable, though the parenthetical example sits mid-sentence rather than leading.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, this is thin. It communicates the main operations but leaves update semantics, required spool_id handling, and all result/error behavior unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It conceptually covers three of them (remaining_g via weighing, price_per_kg via 'price', archived via 'archive') but says nothing about 'name' or the required 'spool_id', leaving real gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (spool) and three concrete operations it performs: correcting values, changing price, archiving. That is specific enough to separate it from spool_add and spool_assign, though 'correct a spool' is slightly soft phrasing for what is really a field update.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives three concrete use contexts — after weighing, price changes, archiving an empty spool — which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. use spool_add to create, spool_assign to bind to a printer), so the guidance is contextual rather than exclusionary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.